Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Wired has an article about a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying the government can't be sued over intercepting phone calls without a warrant. The decision (PDF) vacated an earlier ruling which allowed a case to be brought against the government. The plaintiffs in the case argued that the government had implicitly waived sovereign immunity, but today's ruling points out that it can only be waived explicitly. Judge McKeown wrote, "This case effectively brings to an end the plaintiffs’ ongoing attempts to hold the Executive Branch responsible for intercepting telephone conversations without judicial authorization." The ruling does, however, take time to knock down the government's claim that the case was brought frivolously: "In light of the complex, ever-evolving nature of this litigation, and considering the significant infringement on individual liberties that would occur if the Executive Branch were to disregard congressionally-mandated procedures for obtaining judicial authorization of international wiretaps, the charge of 'game-playing' lobbed by the government is as careless as it is inaccurate. Throughout, the plaintiffs have proposed ways of advancing their lawsuit without jeopardizing national security, ultimately going so far as to disclaim any reliance whatsoever on the Sealed Document. That their suit has ultimately failed does not in any way call into question the integrity with which they pursued it."

Does anyone seriously think hyperbole like this helps anyone? What are you hoping happens, that people take your nonsense seriously and decide that theres nothing they can do to fix things?

No, but of course you're right, we collectively have it about as bad as anyone has had it in 900 years. Never mind the fact that we along with a few others enjoy privileges that others both current and historical would give their lives for; lets count those as rubbish and bemoan our fate. THAT will accomplish a lot.

But of course!
Hyperbole is the bread of the downtrodden masses. It is the axe that will fall on the neck of the oppressor.
It is the light that brightens the future, the candle by which we read the manifestos on our ipads.

Never mind the fact that we along with a few others enjoy privileges that others both current and historical would give their lives for; lets count those as rubbish and bemoan our fate.

Exactly. We can only start complaining the very moment they show up and load us into cattle cars bound for the gas chambers. Until they drop the cyanide canister in, everyone needs to STFU and consider themselves lucky it's not worse off.

“Under this scheme, Al-Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information, but cannot bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the majority. She was joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and Judge Harry Pregerson. ”Although such a structure may seem anomalous and even unfair, the policy judgment is one for Congress, not the courts.”

Huh? The judiciary is abdicating its own power here. It is the actions of the executive in violation of clearly spelled out laws that is the problem here. Are they suggesting that government workers cannot be sued for clear negligence w.r.t. the law because Congress did not authorize it? Did the lawyers in this case sue the legislative branch, or the executive? They should have sued the executive, and they should have won.

Policy is always set by the legislative branch, the judicial can interpret it, and weigh it against the Constitution and see if it is overridden, but that is it.

If the court perceives that to render a judgement would effectively be legislating, they are not permitted to do that, even if they feel the current state of the law is unfair. It is Congress' job to fix bad laws that are not unconstitutional, not the courts'.

If the law made the situation possible which the Executive took advantage of, the court cannot alter the situation without some higher law to override it.

If the court perceives that to render a judgement would effectively be legislating, they are not permitted to do that,

Tell that to John Roberts because that's exactly what he did when he decided that forcing people to pay for other people's medical bills is a tax even though the word tax was not used in the legislation and the President himself has said the bill is not a tax.

Roberts legislated from the bench when he decided to make a political rather than legal decision, effectively handing the presidency to Romney.

One can disagree with the decision all one wants, but it was his to make.

No, it's not. Nowhere in the law did it say it was a tax. During the discussion of creating the law, the word tax was not used. The President even made repeated efforts to state it wasn't a tax. Roberts interpreted the law to mean something which none of the people who pushed for the law said it was.

He did the very thing that conservatives whine all the time about judges, which is he was an activist judge. He read into the law somet

The original FISA Act made it a CRIME with both civil and criminal penalties for an employee of the Federal government to spy on U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant.

The FISA law had provisions for what were deemed immediate threats (for example, surveillance could start immediately provided that a warrant was obtained shortly thereafter). The FISA court was also secret and had a policy of basically rubber-stamping warrant applications, but there was at least some modicum of judicial oversight.

That's the point, the government cannot be sued directly by a citizen, since the government has sovereign immunity.

The court is merely saying that unless the government explicitly decides to waive sovereign immunity, they cannot be sued. The courts do not decide when sovereign immunity has been waived, that is left up to the legislative or executive. This has always been the case in the USA.

That's the point, the government cannot be sued directly by a citizen, since the government has sovereign immunity. The court is merely saying that unless the government explicitly decides to waive sovereign immunity, they cannot be sued. The courts do not decide when sovereign immunity has been waived, that is left up to the legislative or executive. This has always been the case in the USA.

That part is fair enough, but shouldn't the constitution be considered explicitly waiving immunity? Because otherwise the government can tap dance over the 4th amendment's grave and nobody can sue them. In fact, the whole Bill of Rights would be useless.

Because otherwise the government can tap dance over the 4th amendment's grave and nobody can sue them.

From what Im gathering, you CANT sue the "government", but you CAN try to get the courts to strike a law down. IIRC, the recent healthcare thing in the supreme court wasnt a case of the Gov't being sued, but of the law being tested for constitutionality. Unless I am mistaken-- and I might be-- there would have been no penalty for the government if the law had been stricken down other than the political ramifications.

I see the difference but really, it makes the constitution pretty hollow when all the courts can do is strike down a law but can in no way hold the Feds responsible for violating the constitution. The courts can strike down all the laws they want, but what is a citizen to do when the Feds violate the constitution? Nothing. Sovereign immunity trumps everything I guess.

The drug war got the ball rolling on the erosion of civil liberties, GWB ran with that after 9/11, and Obama has totally shredded the const

Lawyer here. There is nothing at all new about the doctrine of sovereign immunity. It goes back hundreds and hundreds of years. As a U.S.-trained lawyer, there is nothing at all surprising about any of this. It may be that we should abandon the doctrine -- I've never heard anyone give a very satisfactory explanation for it -- but it is probably unfair to blame the 9th circuit for not doing so. It would have been a very major break with hundreds (thousands, really) of years of legal tradition and almost certainly would have been reversed summarily by the Supreme Court.

It can get a little bit complicated but basically, you can't sue the government FOR DAMAGES unless the government has consented. For some reason, the government has actually consented to suit in a number of situations in the Federal Tort Claims Act (fun fact: passed after a B-52 crashed into the Empire State Building in the 1940s). This typically extends to suits against government themselves and suits against officials in their so-called official capacity.

But there are two other possibilities: you can still sue the government for non-damages remedies like (typically) an injunction. You can also sue government officials in their individual capacities, but they typically enjoy some degree of immunity themselves (if they didn't, all the law suits would dissuade anyone from working as a federal official).

Really, {add tfh}this kind of thing has been going on for decades and will continue for the foreseeable future without repercussions. It's the government, can we not all expect there to be some amount of collusion between the branches to keep this type of activity going in the name of "national security"?{remove tfh}

Congress passed a unambiguous law before the US entered WW2 prohibiting wire tapping to catch potential German agents in the US and 15 minutes later Eisenhower wrote an executive directive to ignore the law. If the US had been defeated in WW2 he would have been prosecuted and most likely convicted but that didn't happen and Congress decided to pretend they never passed such a law. The US constitution and associated laws are not a suicide pact. Even more astonishing is that presidents Carter, Bush1, Clinton, and Bush 2 were asked what they would have done under the same situation and all of them said they would have did the same thing. Even Obama is willing to make decisions that are technically prohibited by law but laws do not cover all situations in certain circumstances. Especially when national security is involved.

This argument boils down to the idea that the government can ignore the constitution if it thinks it needs to.

This is just a suggestion, but maybe the right thing to do is provide a way to make that sort of behaviour legal.

Consider, for example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has the force of a constitutional Bill of Rights, but contains an "out" clause which says that any individual piece of legislation may override it, but must do so explicitly, and cannot last for more than five years. (Of course, the legislation could be renewed, allowing it to remain in effect in perpetuity, but each renewal r

The very name brings to mind the reason rule of law was brought into being in the first place, so that there was one set of rules for everyone. The elite of the world seem historically hell-bent on creating one set of rules for a ruling class, and one for everyone else.

The government is not a person. It makes the laws. No court can touch it. This is the way the law works in the Anglo-American system, and generally in every developed system.

That said, American courts long ago worked out a clever solution. If you can't sue the government, you can sue the government officer in personam; that is, sue the officer as a regular citizen. If it's illegal for the government to do, then it's illegal for the officer, too, even if he's just following orders.

That is indeed a very new development. Quite a step above the usual "Dismiss this lawsuit, because otherwise we'll have to reveal state secrets and the terrorists will kill everyone". Perhaps because this particular lawsuit is the only challenge that survived the old argument?
Any chance SCOTUS may reverse this?

It's not a new development by any stretch of the imagination. The first court case establishing sovereign immunity in the US was Chisholm v. Georgia, in 1793. That's right, three years after the Constitution was ratified.

Think about it some, who enforces the decisions of Federal courts? The Federal government. So if you brought suit against the Federal government and won, who would enforce the decision? The Feds?? You're asking the government to arrest themselves... which can't be done. You would have to make a new federal government to arrest the old one.

That would mean the courts have the power to overthrow the Federal government, which they don't.

You're asking the government to arrest themselves... which can't be done. You would have to make a new federal government to arrest the old one. That would mean the courts have the power to overthrow the Federal government, which they don't.

Well, the courts can certainly convict persons who make up the government, including the President. However, every attempt by the people to have justice served in this manner has also been thrown out. The only Separation of Power left is the separation between the govern

Well, the courts can certainly convict persons who make up the government, including the President.

Actually, no, a private citizen cannot bring suit against the President. This would be silly... the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Who is going to enforce a decision against him if he refuses to comply?

There's a reason the power to impeach is specifically given to the Legislative branch in the Constitution. If the President wasn't given sovereign immunity, the Judicial branch would ALSO have the power to impeach (since a President can't very well "preside" from a prison cell).

Immunity of the United States From Suit.—Pursuant to the general rule that a sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts, it follows that the judicial power does not extend to suits against the United States unless Congress by general or special enactment consents to suits against the Government. This rule first emanated in embryo form in an obiter dictum by Chief Justice Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia, where he indicated that a suit would not lie against the United States because “there is no power which the courts can call to their aid.”858 In Cohens v. Virginia,859 also by way of dictum, Chief Justice Marshal asserted, “the universally received opinion is that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States.” The issue was more directly in question in United States v. Clarke,860 where Chief Justice Marshall stated that as the United States is “not suable of common right, the party who institutes such suit must bring his case within the authority of some act of Congress, or the court cannot exercise jurisdiction over it.” He thereupon ruled that the act of May 26, 1830, for the final settlement of land claims in Florida condoned the suit. The doctrine of the exemption of the United States from suit was repeated in various subsequent cases, without discussion or examina[p.747]tion.861 Indeed, it was not until United States v. Lee862 that the Court examined the rule and the reasons for it, and limited its application accordingly.

Its insightful because slashdot is filled with armchair lawyer reactionaries who take retarded headlines at face value and act suprised when they discover they were misled.

Slashdot headlines have always been about getting the most intense reaction, and the slashdot readerbase seldom fails to perform in that capacity. Even a moments research would have shown how much of a non-issue this was, but that is too much to ask of slashdot.

Its amazing that you can continue to garner +5 insightfuls with several lawyers in this thread remarking on how clueless you are.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States [wikipedia.org] Youll note in there that Sovereign Immunity has been around since the founding of our country, and that in the UK it has been a historical reality as well.

But continue to spout off about things you apparently have no understanding of, it seems to be doing wonders for your karma.

It also lacks criminal prosecution consequences. The reason this is so is because for criminal prosecution, you need a suspect. In order to have a suspect, you need some information. You can't investigate that which is highly classified for suspects who have broken the law. Classification of government activities effectively shields anyone acting within any classified information space from outside prosecution unless whistleblowers exist.

Illegally obtained proofs are are not acceptable as proofs during a trial. In some cases, mistrial can result from improper procedures during the inquiries. So it still has consequences somehow that the wiretapping was illegal in the first place, even though those using these illegal procedures are not held accountable.

Google "nullification". The principle basically says that if the federal government does something a state finds unconstitutional, the state should tell the feds to go to hell. It's based on the idea that the states are sovereign, and the federal government exists to serve the states in certain matters of common interest which the states enumerated and delegated.

Nullification has been attempted several times. Unsurprisingly, so far the feds have refused to let individual or small groups of

The point is not that the state is never wrong. The federal government errs, too.

The point is that our American government was designed to have the power belong to the states. You don't have to like that design. But if you want to change it, you do it through the amendment process, not by usurping the power.

For decades we have held that phone calls are private communications that require a warrant to intercept per the 4th Amendment. The Federal Government isn't arguing that they haven't violated the 4th. They're arguing that they're immune from any legal attempts to hold them accountable for violating the 4th.

The San Francisco-based appeals court ruled that when Congress wrote the law regulating eavesdropping on Americans and spies, it never waived sovereign immunity in the section prohibiting targeting Americans without warrants. That means Congress did not allow for aggrieved Americans to sue the government, even if their constitutional rights were violated by the United States breaching its own wiretapping laws.

That's Terry Gilliam "Brazil" logic, right there. The government is literally arguing they're violating the 4th Amendment, but that no one has the authority to hold them accountable. Literally, that the King is above the law. This ruling is so bad that not only does it violate the Bill of Rights, it violates the Magna Carta.

They Literally are. I actually attended so many English classes that I remember the entire flow of the argument short-handed as "The King is Above the Law.":-)

They're arguing that no one has the authority to call the Executive to account. They're about half a step short of "Divine Right of Kings," and they certainly have reached "Might Makes Right." Remember "If the president does it, it can't be illegal?" They've simply carried that thought to its logical conclusion, that the president and those who work

How can congress make a law that allows the govt to violate constitutional rights? Is the constitution the supreme law of the land that we take an oath to uphold? Sodoesn't it supersede congressional blabber?

The actual substance of English law was formally "received" into the United States in several ways. First, all U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted "reception statutes" which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.[20] Some reception statutes impose a specific cutoff date for reception, such as the date of a colony's founding, while others are deliberately vague.[21] Thus, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form,[21] such as the heightened duty of care traditionally imposed upon common carriers.[22]

I interpret that to mean that the Magna Carta itself is not US law, but the judical decisions that resulted from the document are. But then, I don't even qualify as an armchair lawyer, so consult your own legal representative before oppressing the serfs.

In fact the only time a federal court has prospectively used its injunctive power to prevent constitutional violations was in Brown v. Board of Education. And that's about to end, because Chief Justice Roberts has explicitly stated that he wants to end that and similar federal practices which arose out of the civil rights movement.

You're arguing that we have the Bill of Rights, but no one has the authority to enforce them, which for all practical purposes means we have no Bill of Rights.

Man, I don't want to go all ITG here, but seriously, too many members of my family have pledged to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic to ever allow that to stand. Do you honestly believe Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson would agree with your stance, that we fought a Revolution for rights and liberties which don't exist in the application?

Again, I'm loathe to sound like some Tea Party nut, but we seem to have arrived at a Constitutional Crisis with an Executive branch that is on a power-mad three-day-drunk. At the local level, we have police departments claiming that merely documenting their activities is a criminal offense. We have the TSA telling a Federal Court that they don't have to do anything they don't wanna do. We have the DOJ telling another Federal Court they don't have to respect the 4th Amendment and "You're not the Boss of me!" We have a president who claims the right to order the execution of any American citizen without trial.

Clinton, Bush, Obama -- it doesn't seem to matter WHO holds the office, it's the office itself that's out of control. Personally, I think the writing's been on the wall since we let Nixon escape a jail term.

Yes, your rights are being violated, but nobody is taking your property or your liberty...

The violation of the rights IS the Liberty being taken.

It gets better. The situation you're describing is the collapse of the Rule of Law. One definition of an illegitimate government is one that won't even play by its own rules. At this point, I'll let Jefferson speak for himself:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Any government that won't respect the rights of their citizenry is no government at all, by the very principles we hold most dear...

Seems to me that when the government can violate the law with impunity, it is aiming for despotism. The law of the land is respected only so long as everybody (the government included) is held accountable by it equally.

I hesitate to type this but after reading TFA I could only conclude that Congress is, in fact, the enemy. Those responsible for passing the applicable laws should, in my mind, be tried for treason. That or show us all (that is - all of us) the truth about all these plots and evil little plans that threatened to take off half the eastern seaboard. SHOW ME! Cunts.

That we're allowed to (nay, made to) fear and to react to that which we can not see is no longer acceptable. Not. Acceptable. I. Do. Not. Accept.

I am not entirely sure why you would conclude that. I'd blame the court here
IANAL, but I think I would have heard that every law has to have an extra note that says "oh, and government is not immune to this law". And if Congress forgot to add that note - too bad, better luck next time.
Maybe the SCOTUS will take this one for review?

What about deprivation of rights under color of law? They've already confirmed that 4th amendment protected rights were violated. Now, we're just talking about how to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.

The ideal that US government is of the people, by the people and for the people is not only dead, but stick a fork in its fucking carcass dead. Behold a brave new future for Americans, where we cast off the burden of being equal in the eyes of the law, and, instead, become serfs of the state, destined to do only as we're told, when we're told - and love it... Comrade! Smile when you lick those boots!

George Bush didn't make any laws. The President doesn't make laws, he signs them (or vetoes them). He can write Executive Orders, which are sort of like laws derived from powers the Executive was already granted by Congress or the Constitution, but this isn't one of them. The law in question is a bona fide law passed by Congress with a majority vote of both Houses.

Did Bush want the law? Yes. Was he going to get the law if it would have seen most of the Congress people booted out of office next election? Nope.

I'm not saying the voters are ultimately at fault, because the fact is with a government as big as it is these days, and the issues so numerous, what voter can actually find any representative who will see eye to eye with him? Even big topics like this one are only second order (or lower) issues compared to the overriding hot button issues that elections are actually won on. I mean, we have maneuvered the government into a position where we expect it to fix the whole damn economy as well as provide our health care. You'd have to start making a hell of a lot of warrant-less wiretaps to get someone to throw their favorite politician out of office for that.

Even more importantly, a 2/3 majority of Congress can override the veto. So if the law had 66.6% support when it passed, there is little point in veto-ing it (besides making a statement) and presidents don't always bother.

Four years ago, when the President was pushing more Executive power, many were against it. Those people who were against it, were called "UnAmerican" or were accused of wanting to "help the terrorists" or "didn't realize the threats" against our country. Others pointed out the any extra powers that the executive branch will eventually be in the hands of the "other guys" - in this case the Democrats.

No one listened.

People were afraid and there was revenge in the air. John Q. Public was/is more than happy to give the Government more powers because they'll only use it for "good" and NEVER use it against anyone who isn't doing anything "wrong".

As we have seen, power is NEVER given up. The Obama Administration can at anytime give up those extra powers that the previous administration acquired.

They haven't. Nor will they.

And neither will the next Presidential Administration regardless of who gets into office - even if it's Ron Paul.

We as citizens have failed. We are at fault. We let emotion and the desire for revenge cloud our thoughts and we gave away our Freedoms. Sure, we were thrown some bones - like being able to own an assault rifle with big honking magazines increases my freedom - Plah-ease. The government keeps a real close eye on gun purchases. As well as large financial transactions - see OFAC [treasury.gov] - buy a car - even YOU citizen and it's reported to the government (I know it SAYS foreign but it is also used for domestic purchases on EVERYONE. And then there's the government getting information from: ISPs, Cell Phone providers, Medical Information Bureau, VISA, Mastercard, Credit Bureaus, ChoicePoint, Google, etc... all with just a scary letter. Who needs a Government Database of files on everyone when corporate America does it anyway (scattered bits and pieces but anyone of us here could create our own Stasi SQL script to put it all together) for the sake of Marketing Data?

They're keeping us SAFE after all and if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about!

The Obama Administration can at anytime give up those extra powers that the previous administration acquired.

They haven't. Nor will they.

Of course not. Liberals never give up the tools of fascism, they need them too dearly.

Your only chance this round to help at all is to vote with Republicans or other conservatives, whose angle is reduced federal government, and increasing state powers basically with Tea Party candidates). That is the only way to loose the noose (not misspelled).

Your only chance this round to help at all is to vote with Republicans or other conservatives, whose angle is reduced federal government, and increasing state powers basically with Tea Party candidates). That is the only way to loose the noose (not misspelled).

With a reduced federal government comes reduced funds for mischief, and reduced power over you. It is the ONLY way out apart from violence.

Of course not. Liberals never give up the tools of fascism, they need them too dearly.

Yes, clearly [classical] liberals need those tools in order to realize limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberties including free markets and freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly.

The following is taken from R. Hudelson, Modern Political Philosophy. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, NY, USA, 1999:

By the middle of the nineteenth century, a coherent vision of how society should be organized had taken shape in England, western Europe, and the Americas. This vision is the political ideology of classical liberalism. [...] Central to the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century is a commitment to the liberty of individual citizens. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly [are] core components, as [is] the underlying conception of the proper role of just government as the protection of the liberties of individual citizens. Also central to classical liberalism was a commitment to a system of free markets as the best way to organize economic life.

[...] Classical liberalism draws on the economic science of Adam Smith, the psychological insight into the importance of individual liberty to human beings, and the ethical theories of natural law and utilitarianism. While, at their most abstract level, utilitarianism and natural law disagree profoundly about what makes something morally right or wrong, when combined with the convictions about the truth of Smith's economics and the psychology of human liberty, both theories agree in their endorsement of free markets and limited government. By the middle of the nineteenth century, convinced by the utilitarian critique of the idea of natural law, most philosophers had embraced the utilitarian philosophy. Nonetheless, being also convinced by Smith and Mill of the conduciveness to human happiness and the maximal individual liberty, these same philosophers could warmly endorse the political principles championed by the natural-law theorists of the American and French Revolutions. [...] As the century drew to a close, most classical liberals had also [...] followed Bentham and Mill into accepting the principle of democracy as well. Only governments elected by universal or near-universal suffrage could reasonably be expected to refrain from violating the liberty of their citizens in service to narrow interests [...]

(In case it wasn't obvious, you should not generalize, let alone bandy terms with which you are, seemingly, unfamiliar.)

Your only chance this round to help at all is to vote with Republicans or other conservatives, whose angle is reduced federal government, and increasing state powers basically with Tea Party candidates). That is the only way to loose the noose (not misspelled).

So, along with Romney's comments about Obama's support for Green Energy, Romney plans to remove all subsidies and tax credits that oil and gas companies benefit from, does he? Strangely, I haven't heard this statement from the Romney campaign, but

By this logic, it should be OK for a Democratic administration to eavesdrop on Republican campaign planning conversations and vice versa, since unless they're doing "bad $#!t", they have nothing to hide...

This... This is possibly one of the worst things I've ever read. There is a reason this was posted as AC, because he'd have gotten modded into oblivion otherwise. We stand up for ALL freedoms, regardless of if we use them or not because as soon as one freedom is sacrificed it becomes an excuse to lose another, and another. We are seeing that every single day.

If you honestly believe what you just posted, I can only have pity on you. Your excuse was a favorite line of the Gestapo during WWII.

Courtroom version: Do you commit any form of financial fraud through your banking accounts, AC? Do you... engage in any form of illicit sexual behavior in your bedroom? Do you use your office to engage in graft, fraud, or organized crime? Do you engage in criminal behavior using your automobile?

Categorically no? Well then, you're just a stand-up all around good guy aren't you? So, what are the details I need to access your banking ac

Unless you have the intelligence to differentiate between breaking a legal monopoly and an invasion of privacy by the government. The former is an issue of statutory law, while the latter is an issue of constitutional law. The issue has nothing to do with copying. It would be an illegal search if a government agent was tapping your phone just to masturbate to your voice.

There are a number. I am a full supporter of the Tea Party, I also support gay marriage (I have been a libertarian forever). The Tea Party is about reduction of spending and the size of government, not religious matters.

Also it does not matter if the candidate is religious. Palin is very religious yet she was supportive of states rights to choose if things like abortion were legal. The great thing about a states rights candidate is that they move choice closer to where it belongs.

The old Tea Party people are not so bad, I know a few. The new Tea Baggers are either astro turf or hoards of crazy morons who give the sex act a bad name.

Notice the Tea Baggers are all about destroying anything useful and proven while not touching nearly any worthwhile issue - all while saying they want to reduce government! As if privatizing social security would be better (it wasn't and that is why it was created, duh!)

The old group picked their name and had a big issue with how our politicians do not r